The "strong creatives" I'm familiar with have a more unusual superpower: the incredible ability to travel back in time and retrospectively transform random spatters of paint through the superpower of interpretation into profound comments on the nature of life.

I suppose I oughta give it a look; Locke & Key is fantastic. (And, to give credit where it's due, Hill is more precisely described as its co-creator, with artist Gabriel Rodriguez. Comics don't draw themselves.)

I suppose I oughta give it a look; Locke & Key is fantastic. (And, to give credit where it's due, Hill is more precisely described as its co-creator, with artist Gabriel Rodriguez. Comics don't draw themselves.)

I should prolly catch this now that it's been out.. if anything because they filmed a lot of it within walking distance of my house. The concept seemed cool-ish, but just flew under the radar for the most part.

There's just something offputting MarySue hipsterish about this. Is there a scene where someone makes fun of the character for having a name like this? Do they call her things like Vic "The Rock" McQueen just to make the point? That would be worth it.

Otherwise this sounds like an interesting concept even if it seems to play to the trope that artists have to be tortured or crazy to be any good. I'm willing to give it a shot for stuff-to-watch-while-I'm-working.

There's just something offputting MarySue hipsterish about this. Is there a scene where someone makes fun of the character for having a name like this? Do they call her things like Vic "The Rock" McQueen just to make the point? That would be worth it.

Otherwise this sounds like an interesting concept even if it seems to play to the trope that artists have to be tortured or crazy to be any good. I'm willing to give it a shot for stuff-to-watch-while-I'm-working.

I'm going to pass on the series, but am immediately adding the book to my Kindle. I am always on the prowl for good vampire stories. 'Salem's Lot, for example, is among my favorite of King's stories.

Speaking of which, I hadn't known Hill was King's son. Thanks for that tidbit.

You wouldn't unless you actually researched him because he has gone out of his way to not identify with his father. Even after his first scribblings being released to the public people were like 'He looks like Stephen King' and 'His writing is similar' but he refused to say anything on the subject and IIRC even told interviewers not to ask him the question about it because he was tired of answering it. Mainly because he wanted to completely come into success on his own and it not be because of who his daddy is, which make me respect him, his mother and his father even more. Say what you will about your taste in their writing or your opinion of its quality, they definitely did something right when they raised Joe.

Otherwise this sounds like an interesting concept even if it seems to play to the trope that artists have to be tortured or crazy to be any good.

It does, which is a bit ironic, because King specifically called that out as a pernicious myth in On Writing; one that he himself used as an excuse for years to justify his addictions, before ultimately getting help and finally realizing that his talents as a writer are unrelated to his struggles as an addict.

Of course, he also wrote plenty of novels based on the exact premise of gaining power through some pernicious and addictive influence, so it's not as if the trope is foreign territory to the King-Hill family.

Otherwise this sounds like an interesting concept even if it seems to play to the trope that artists have to be tortured or crazy to be any good.

It does, which is a bit ironic, because King specifically called that out as a pernicious myth in On Writing; one that he himself used as an excuse for years to justify his addictions, before ultimately getting help and finally realizing that his talents as a writer are unrelated to his struggles as an addict.

Of course, he also wrote plenty of novels based on the exact premise of gaining power through some pernicious and addictive influence, so it's not as if the trop is foreign territory to the King-Hill family.

On Writing and Danse Macabre, his two non-fiction works, are among my favorite King books.

There's just something offputting MarySue hipsterish about this. Is there a scene where someone makes fun of the character for having a name like this? Do they call her things like Vic "The Rock" McQueen just to make the point? That would be worth it.

Otherwise this sounds like an interesting concept even if it seems to play to the trope that artists have to be tortured or crazy to be any good. I'm willing to give it a shot for stuff-to-watch-while-I'm-working.

Well, they say write what you know. From what I've heard/read his dad was pretty tortured at times, and his dad is also preeeeetty good.

Otherwise this sounds like an interesting concept even if it seems to play to the trope that artists have to be tortured or crazy to be any good.

It does, which is a bit ironic, because King specifically called that out as a pernicious myth in On Writing; one that he himself used as an excuse for years to justify his addictions, before ultimately getting help and finally realizing that his talents as a writer are unrelated to his struggles as an addict.

Of course, he also wrote plenty of novels based on the exact premise of gaining power through some pernicious and addictive influence, so it's not as if the trop is foreign territory to the King-Hill family.

To be fair, do you really know any MASSIVELY genius artist that wasn't crazy or an addict? King made his name while dealing with alcoholism and a major cocaine addiction. Whether is be writers, musicians or artists, few who are incredibly skilled and good are so while being completely clean. And it's not having to do with the struggles, or even talent, other than in how they affect you in trying to do the skill. One of the 'tricks' about how to get better at an instrument for example is to practice while on your drug of choice. Reason being usually you will lose track of time and practice far longer than when completely sober, and when you try playing completely sober you'll find it is much easier to play because you aren't high or stoned. It does actually kind of work. Similarly for King I am sure when he was boozing it up and high on cocaine he was writing hours upon hours upon hours straight, which inevitably leads to dramatic improvement in skill simply due to the sunk time so long as you don't get out of control to where you lose the capability of any reasonable logical thought. Drugs and alcohol also tend to break down barriers we self construct allowing you to come up with ideas you wouldn't have otherwise thought of.

You have to remember pretty much everything everyone ascribes to 'talent' actually has nothing to do with talent and everything to do with invested time. You may say be a natural at guitar, that simply means you can move up a bit faster to your first plateau than someone less 'talented' but that doesn't mean you are any better of a player actually, just that to a certain point things come easier and that isn't necessarily true either. My daughter for example learns multiple music pieces in hours. Not because she is a prodigy at music but because she is absolutely enamored with it, and lives, breathes and eats it. However that only applies to guitar, drums, bass, and vocal, she on the other hand has been playing violin far longer but is not near as good at it simply because she doesn't enjoy it and thus doesn't put as much effort into it. Note she still does it because it is a free hour of working on music during school, and helps in her understanding of theory/building exposure to compositions in general. The actual act of playing the violin itself though is not as interesting to her anymore.

But the point being, 'talent' has almost nothing to do with it. You can have an extremely 'talented' individual do something for 5 hours on a Saturday, and an 'average' individual do highly focused practice 1 hour a day Monday through Friday and I guarantee over the same given time frame of say 6 months that average person will be head and shoulders above the 'talented' individual.

In the end, when you are talking about skill development and mastery it all comes down to willingness, time invested CONSISTENTLY/REGULARLY and focus. Steve Vai, and Joe Satriani didn't get where they are because they were talented, and they even regularly say as much, they got where they were because they consistently put in the time, effort and focus and had incredible attention to detail. Same with the greats like Charlie Parker or Buddy Rich.

It was cool for us to see locations that we used to, or still, frequent. Like the mini mart in Warren that I used to cycle past, as the bike path travels alongside it. Honestly, I think that was a major reason we kept watching it, trying to figure out each location where they shot. The story was somewhat interesting, felt original, but often times it was boring. I'm sure we'll watch the second season if it gets made.

I'm not a fan of the terribly-acted, inaccurate New England accents either; few actors get it right.

You wouldn't unless you actually researched him because he has gone out of his way to not identify with his father. Even after his first scribblings being released to the public people were like 'He looks like Stephen King' and 'His writing is similar' but he refused to say anything on the subject and IIRC even told interviewers not to ask him the question about it because he was tired of answering it. Mainly because he wanted to completely come into success on his own and it not be because of who his daddy is, which make me respect him, his mother and his father even more. Say what you will about your taste in their writing or your opinion of its quality, they definitely did something right when they raised Joe.

Well, I don't know if I'd go quite that far. I'll trust you that he wanted to make it on his own, but his writing has many references to his father's work, including:

Spoiler: show

settings, inscapes (Pennywise's Circus, among others), references to Beatles' music, and mirrored character behavior and lines (Trashcan man and Bing Partridge..."My life for you!")

When I was reading NOS4ATU, I asked myself, is this guy King's protege? And then I looked it up and saw that he is his son.

It was cool for us to see locations that we used to, or still, frequent. Like the mini mart in Warren that I used to cycle past, as the bike path travels alongside it. Honestly, I think that was a major reason we kept watching it, trying to figure out each location where they shot. The story was somewhat interesting, felt original, but often times it was boring. I'm sure we'll watch the second season if it gets made.

I'm not a fan of the terribly-acted, inaccurate New England accents either; few actors get it right.

Tangent: For the record, your username would be even better if it was Dent Arthur Dent.

Otherwise this sounds like an interesting concept even if it seems to play to the trope that artists have to be tortured or crazy to be any good.

It does, which is a bit ironic, because King specifically called that out as a pernicious myth in On Writing; one that he himself used as an excuse for years to justify his addictions, before ultimately getting help and finally realizing that his talents as a writer are unrelated to his struggles as an addict.

Of course, he also wrote plenty of novels based on the exact premise of gaining power through some pernicious and addictive influence, so it's not as if the trop is foreign territory to the King-Hill family.

On Writing and Danse Macabre, his two non-fiction works, are among my favorite King books.

You wouldn't unless you actually researched him because he has gone out of his way to not identify with his father. Even after his first scribblings being released to the public people were like 'He looks like Stephen King' and 'His writing is similar' but he refused to say anything on the subject and IIRC even told interviewers not to ask him the question about it because he was tired of answering it. Mainly because he wanted to completely come into success on his own and it not be because of who his daddy is, which make me respect him, his mother and his father even more. Say what you will about your taste in their writing or your opinion of its quality, they definitely did something right when they raised Joe.

Well, I don't know if I'd go quite that far. I'll trust you that he wanted to make it on his own, but his writing has many references to his father's work, including:

Spoiler: show

settings, inscapes (Pennywise's Circus, among others), references to Beatles' music, and mirrored character behavior and lines (Trashcan man and Bing Partridge..."My life for you!")

When I was reading NOS4ATU, I asked myself, is this guy King's protege? And then I looked it up and saw that he is his son.

I always looked at the references as more of along the lines of the Lovecraftian following, King has a very relaxed view on people appropriating his material for their own use. He even uses other author's people and settings in his own book linking them together. For example Steve Carrella in The Stand is the same one from Ed McBain's 87th Precinct novels, Jack Reacher is in Under the Dome. Other authors than Joe Hill likewise refer to characters and locations in the King universe. Honestly a lot of authors out there do the same thing. You just don't necessarily catch it as much as the name Jack Reacher doesn't stand out as much as say Pennywise.

Otherwise this sounds like an interesting concept even if it seems to play to the trope that artists have to be tortured or crazy to be any good.

It does, which is a bit ironic, because King specifically called that out as a pernicious myth in On Writing; one that he himself used as an excuse for years to justify his addictions, before ultimately getting help and finally realizing that his talents as a writer are unrelated to his struggles as an addict.

Of course, he also wrote plenty of novels based on the exact premise of gaining power through some pernicious and addictive influence, so it's not as if the trop is foreign territory to the King-Hill family.

On Writing and Danse Macabre, his two non-fiction works, are among my favorite King books.

You wouldn't unless you actually researched him because he has gone out of his way to not identify with his father. Even after his first scribblings being released to the public people were like 'He looks like Stephen King' and 'His writing is similar' but he refused to say anything on the subject and IIRC even told interviewers not to ask him the question about it because he was tired of answering it. Mainly because he wanted to completely come into success on his own and it not be because of who his daddy is, which make me respect him, his mother and his father even more. Say what you will about your taste in their writing or your opinion of its quality, they definitely did something right when they raised Joe.

Well, I don't know if I'd go quite that far. I'll trust you that he wanted to make it on his own, but his writing has many references to his father's work, including:

Spoiler: show

settings, inscapes (Pennywise's Circus, among others), references to Beatles' music, and mirrored character behavior and lines (Trashcan man and Bing Partridge..."My life for you!")

When I was reading NOS4ATU, I asked myself, is this guy King's protege? And then I looked it up and saw that he is his son.

I always looked at the references as more of along the lines of the Lovecraftian following, King has a very relaxed view on people appropriating his material for their own use. He even uses other author's people and settings in his own book linking them together. For example Steve Carrella in The Stand is the same one from Ed McBain's 87th Precinct novels, Jack Reacher is in Under the Dome. Other authors than Joe Hill likewise refer to characters and locations in the King universe. Honestly a lot of authors out there do the same thing. You just don't necessarily catch it as much as the name Jack Reacher doesn't stand out as much as say Pennywise.

Tim Powers and Jim Blaylock share characters and dabble in each other's worlds, but (having met them) I know they are collaborators and personal friends.

Without going into incredible detail I’ll just leave it at King and I have similar demons and skills and reading that book helped me to get the help I knew I needed anyway and to write in a manner that has made me very successful.

Had I not read that book at a very dark time in my life, I wouldn’t be typing this.

You wouldn't unless you actually researched him because he has gone out of his way to not identify with his father. Even after his first scribblings being released to the public people were like 'He looks like Stephen King' and 'His writing is similar' but he refused to say anything on the subject and IIRC even told interviewers not to ask him the question about it because he was tired of answering it. Mainly because he wanted to completely come into success on his own and it not be because of who his daddy is, which make me respect him, his mother and his father even more. Say what you will about your taste in their writing or your opinion of its quality, they definitely did something right when they raised Joe.

Well, I don't know if I'd go quite that far. I'll trust you that he wanted to make it on his own, but his writing has many references to his father's work, including:

Spoiler: show

settings, inscapes (Pennywise's Circus, among others), references to Beatles' music, and mirrored character behavior and lines (Trashcan man and Bing Partridge..."My life for you!")

When I was reading NOS4ATU, I asked myself, is this guy King's protege? And then I looked it up and saw that he is his son.

He chose "Joe Hill" as his pen name specifically to make it less obvious who his father was, and new readers just seeing his name on the spine of a book wouldn't know, but it's not exactly a secret, either, especially since a 2006 Variety headline.

IIRC he talks about it a bit in one of the forewords or afterwords somewhere in the Locke & Key series, and says something like, "People told me I shouldn't write horror because I'd be compared to my father, but then I realized everyone who writes horror is compared to my father."

Without going into incredible detail I’ll just leave it at King and I have similar demons and skills and reading that book helped me to get the help I knew I needed anyway and to write in a manner that has made me very successful.

Had I not read that book at a very dark time in my life, I wouldn’t be typing this.

I'm the kind who doesn't really have any shits to give about what other people think with respect to entertainment. I'll consider whys at times, but overall ratings in entertainment are, well, bullshit to someone.

Plan 9 from Outer Space was a fucking riot. It wasn't in any way, shape or form "good", but it was great in how bad it was. Birdemic is another one (the Rifftrax version is better), just because of the awful direction and stilted line delivery (not to mention the establishment shots to excess - more safely pulling out into traffic during an emergency than in any movie in history!).

You see, what most people find to be utter shit (and 7 on IMDB is hardly shit these days) will appeal to someone. So I keep an open mind and read what happens and decide if I want to see that happening for myself. Then I make up my mind.

I've frequently found populist stuff to often be non-entertaining to me, and found "bad" stuff to be highly entertaining. "Good" and "bad" are absolutely relative to the viewer and to be honest don't really relate well to what is "entertaining" and what is "not entertaining". I rely on what's entertaining to me for my metrics.

But obviously a lot of folks use other people's impressions to decide what they want to see. So either way is valid, but I tend to think making up one's mind based on a specific score is relatively narrow-minded and leaves out a lot of gems in the rough that could leave you howling, or enthralled, without it being that "good" on a general relative scale.